Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Indian Additives Ltd. vs Indian Additives Employees' Union ... on 14 December, 2004
The decision before the First Bench of this Court was a case of breach of the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Court held that the remedy that was available to the Union was to raise an Industrial Dispute and seek adjudication of the same before the appropriate forum. In the present case, the issue cannot be termed as Industrial Dispute for the reasons set out above. Therefore, alternative remedy is not a bar for seeking remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India in a given case. The decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 33 referred to above will be more appropriate to the facts of the present case. Further, in view of the interpretations given by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the decisions of the High Courts referred to above clearly fortifies the interpretation without any doubt. The interpretation as has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents is erroneous and contrary to the judgments cited above. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by relegating the objections to the so-called alternative remedy. Under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, an interpretation of this nature cannot be made. In any event the decision of the Court will be binding on such authority. Therefore, the petitioners have rightly approached this Court for the relief and they are entitled to the same.
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005
In the very same decision in (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 264 (U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. - v. - R.S. Pandey) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents to state that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, the apex Court also held as follows:-
The Rajasthan State Road ... vs Krishna Kant Etc.Etc on 3 May, 1995
To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976 (1) SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L & S) 70), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995 (5) SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L & S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110 : AIR 1995 SC 1715), Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad (2002 (2) SCC 542 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 317) and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred (1998 (6) SCC 549 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 1611)."
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam & Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Ahmedabad & ... on 6 February, 2002
To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976 (1) SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L & S) 70), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995 (5) SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L & S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110 : AIR 1995 SC 1715), Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad (2002 (2) SCC 542 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 317) and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred (1998 (6) SCC 549 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 1611)."
Scooters India And Ors. vs Vijai E.V. Eldred on 3 October, 1996
To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976 (1) SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L & S) 70), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995 (5) SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L & S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110 : AIR 1995 SC 1715), Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad (2002 (2) SCC 542 : 2002 SCC (L & S) 317) and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred (1998 (6) SCC 549 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 1611)."
Hirday Narain vs Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly on 21 July, 1970
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the said decision, set aside the Circular dated 8.7.1989 and the letter dated 12.11.1990 issued by the respondents therein denying the benefit of graduation increment to the employee in that case.
First Income-Tax Officer, Salem vs M/S. Short Brothers (P) Ltd on 15 December, 1965
"When the High Court had entertained a writ petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is found to be palpably unsound and irrational. Similar view was expressed by this Court in First ITO v. Short Bros.
State Of U.P. & Others vs M/S. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1977
(P) Ltd., (1996)3 SCR 84 : AIR 1967 SC 81 and State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (1977)2 SCC 724 : 1977 SCC (Tax) 335). That being the position, we do not consider the High Court's judgment to be vulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was not availed."